Get Lost: Mann and the Mythical Hockey Shtick.

Mann is somewhat upset that someone has actually questioned his manipulation of the facts regarding the Global Warming Hoax, he is ofcourse one of the prime movers of the hysterics pertaining to that. No one should have the temerity to question as scientist of his "calibre", as he is all seeing and all knowing, and science in his view should not be questioned by anyone except the followers of the great AGW hoax. Just to keep the faith and ensure those billions keep rolling in.

The fact that scientists like Mann, Jones and others have continually discouraged, threatened and banned other scientists who have opposing views, appears to be an irrelevance. This is not how science should be encouraged or pursued but it is what they have blatantly done. Check the emails exposed from the UEA releases and read for yourself how these manipulators have conned the public especially when they could not explain why is was so cold. Best thing to do is to hide it and deny it's existence, which is exactly what they did. Snake oil salesman does not even come near to explaining their dishonest and blatantly illegal behaviour. Illegal, because they have used public funding to manipulate the facts.

How dare anyone question Mann and the suspicious hockey stick, which has been completely destroyed by the facts. So now he is suing those that want to expose him.

August 22, 2012 1:15 P.M.

Get Lost

My response to Michael Mann.

By Rich Lowry

So, as you might have heard, Michael Mann of Climategate infamy is threatening to sue us.

Mann is upset — very, very upset — with this Mark Steyn Corner post, which had the temerity to call Mann’s hockey stick “fraudulent.” The Steyn post was mild compared with other things that have been said about the notorious hockey stick, and, in fact, it fell considerably short of an item about Mann published elsewhere that Steyn quoted in his post.

So why threaten to sue us? I rather suspect it is because the Steyn post was savagely witty and stung poor Michael. Possessing not an ounce of Steyn’s wit or eloquence, poor Michael didn’t try to engage him in a debate. He sent a laughably threatening letter and proceeded to write pathetically lame chest-thumping posts on his Facebook page. (Is it too much to ask that world-renowned climate scientists spend less time on Facebook?)
All of this is transparent nonsense, as our letter of response outlines.
In common polemical usage, “fraudulent” doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud. It means intellectually bogus and wrong. I consider Mann’s prospective lawsuit fraudulent. Uh-oh. I guess he now has another reason to sue us.
Usually, you don’t welcome a nuisance lawsuit, because it’s a nuisance. It consumes time. It costs money. But this is a different matter in light of one word: discovery.
If Mann sues us, the materials we will need to mount a full defense will be extremely wide-ranging. So if he files a complaint, we will be doing more than fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on a journalistic project of great interest to us and our readers.
And this is where you come in. If Mann goes through with it, we’re probably going to call on you to help fund our legal fight and our investigation of Mann through discovery. If it gets that far, we may eventually even want to hire a dedicated reporter to comb through the materials and regularly post stories on Mann.
My advice to poor Michael is to go away and bother someone else. If he doesn’t have the good sense to do that, we look forward to teaching him a thing or two about the law and about how free debate works in a free country.
He’s going to go to great trouble and expense to embark on a losing cause that will expose more of his methods and maneuverings to the world. In short, he risks making an ass of himself. But that hasn’t stopped him before.

Here is why Mann is suing the Review -(Ed)

Football and Hockey

By Mark Steyn

July 15, 2012 6:22 P.M.

Comments

141

In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal:

I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.

Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.

How To Cook the Books on Global Warming by Dr Phil Jones, Prof James Hansen and Tom Rigley.

The temperature record is an honest and real representation of the climate, no really. They stake their reputation on it.

 Global Warming Dishonesty and Caprice

Whenever you catch anyone in an act of dishonesty, be it a child with it's hand in the cookie jar or the smell of weed in someone's bedroom. You automatically know it has to be dealt with, swift, clean and honestly. That is the way it is.
When people notice that some scientists have deliberately and dishonestly exaggerated  temperature results and skewed the outcome to suit their own purposes, they should face some level of accountability and be held accountable for those lies and distortions. The predominately left wing thinking process does not work in that way ofcourse.
They will turn a blind eye to dishonesty, lies, cheating and law breaking (think Occupy Everything, with rape, assaults, carnage, thievery etc) while still demanding that those action are legitimate and their "intentions" were honourable. The rabble prefer ignorance and lies to facts and honesty. It is the way they think. Stupid is as stupid does, should in reality be their calling card and their main slogan.

Never before published paper on UHI and siting – Goodridge 1987

Mind you, this is data that Jim used prior to the big range of adjustments that have been applied by NCDC. Jim provides all that data in the paper. It might be interesting to compare the data then and now to see what has been done to it. Another important distinction of note is that this paper was presented over a year before NASA’s Dr. James Hansen went before the Senate in June 1988, and touted his science and model predictions, deeming it so solid that they had to turn off the air conditioning in the hearing room for “theatrical effect”.
Figure 6 and 7 on page 10 are also instructive:

 
When comparing the temp. results with other factors like population, as compared to open areas where these stations should be, we have an entirely different picture. We can see clearly how the population effects the temperature in a big way. It can be easily shown when comparing population growth with temperature increase. That would ofcourse be a given, as more tarmac, concrete and buildings will store more heat than an open paddock.

Plus answers to yesterday’s Fun puzzle: Name these official stations.
Given that California Governor Jerry Brown has recently setup a website at the governor’s office basically telling skeptics to “shut up” I thought this would be a good time to publish this.
This is a paper that was presented at a climate conference by Jim Goodridge, former State Climatologist of California, titled Population and Temperature Trends in California at the Pacific Climate Workshop, in Pacific Grove, CA March 22-26, 1987.

 Bingo, below, the liars and exaggerators are being continually exposed and nothing and no one in position of power is even bothering to bring them to account. What the hell is going on here. Is everyone complicit in this hoax ?

More information on this link.


Memorandum submitted by Richard S Courtney (CRU 01)

In a press release at

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_cru_inquiry.cfm

your Select Committee "announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA)."

Here are the graphs to demonstrate the effect of population growth and temperature.

When Will Jones et al, Tell the Truth on Global Warming?

Waaaah, Waaaaah, We are ALL going to FRY, Whaaaaa!!!! Give me a break children..

Why is Phil Jones exaggerating or hiding facts about the data used to generate items like the "hockey stick" or the "Hide the Decline" statement. Why is he hiding the data to one lot of scientists and freely supplying them to others. Why are we getting all those excuses and blatant un-truths, if Jones has nothing to hide ?

It has always been the case that the main instigators of the CAGW hysteria should supply their data in order for it to be checked and verified. That is and should be standard scientific proceedure. Their is nothing odious or hidious about a request for data in order to test someone's theory unless one has something to hide ofcourse. Jones appears to be that someone as Patrick J Micheals explains..

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

And also this -

 It’s worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).

Be aware also that Patrick Michaels ain't no amateur either..

– Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know

But ofcourse the fun continues as both Mann and Jones have some major questions to answer and it's not about their studies but more about their ethics and integrity. Jones has now stepped down from his position at UEA and will ofcourse move into some other US left wing university where both ethics and integrity are used to wash the bathroom floor.

 Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.

.